So says Gov. Sanford, who says he spent the last "five days of my life crying in Argentina."

I must say I'm thoroughly bored with these politicians and their sexual affairs, but at least Sanford was a bit weird — disappearing, getting the staff to lie, absconding to another hemisphere, crying....

Mr. Sanford is the third sitting governor to become the central figure in a major scandal in recent years. Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer, Democrat of New York, resigned a few days after his involvement with prostitutes was revealed in March 2008. Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, Democrat of Illinois, clung to office for weeks after being accused by prosecutors of influence-peddling, including trying to sell the Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama; he was impeached and removed from office by the state legislature on Jan. 29.

Scandal? What scandal? An extra-marital affair is not a scandal, not in the political sense anyway.

I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night’s light - but hey, that would be going into sexual details ...

I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal. I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage.

Psalm 127 states that sons are a gift from the Lord and children a reward from Him. I will continue to pour my energy into raising our sons to be honorable young men. I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.

Hopefully, at some point we will get beyond this obsession with politician's private lives. It plays no role, nor is an indicator, of their abilities to govern.

With that said, It is people like this chap and and Senator John Ensign who want to push themselves forward as the great defenders of "marriage" and keep that civil institution from being extended to same sex couples. I think it is fair to call them hypocrites on that.

1) Eliot Spitzer was removed for engaging in an illegal activity: namely hiring prostitutes. There was also some allegation that he was using public funds to do so.

2) What Sanford did wasn't illegal. Just as what Bill Clinton did with Lewinsky wasn't illegal: right up until the point that he committed perjury by lying about it.

3) What Sanford did was stupid, and I condemn him for it. Not because he cheated on his wife: I could care less. But because there is a double standard for Democrats and Republicans, and he knows it. Clinton cheating? The press cheers. Edwards cheating? The press turns a blind eye. A Republican cheating? It's front page news.

He was a potential 2012 candidate, and rather than keep it in his pants, he showed incredibly poor political judgment in engaging in the affair. He's ruined his shot at the Republican nomination, and it's a shame. As such, I'm glad it came out sooner rather than later.

4) Before the Leftists here inevitably leap to the "hypocrite" attack, if you can point me to any advocacy that any Republican anywhere has had for anti-adultery laws then I'll agree with you.

"Family values" and its attendant morality are a goal that we should all strive for: not an absolute statement that one is perfect. I know that Leftists take particular glee in the failing of a Republican's marriage with no thought to the effect it has on his family, but since our Leftists here are so big on trying to use religion as a bludgeon I'll remind them that every Christian on the planet knows that the only perfect person ever to walk the planet was Jesus and that we are all sinners. Because a Christian fails to live up to his ideal at all times in all places isn't proof that the ideal shouldn't exist: it's just proof that we are human and we all need to try harder next time (after making our peace with God, of course).

If you're honest in small things, you'll be honest in big things; If you're a crook in small things, you'll be a crook in big things. If you're not honest in small jobs, who will put you in charge of the store?

Those classy Argentine women like powerful southern men for some reason. They are usually from a high a up family in Argentina and are almost European Aristocracy in their own minds. How they get into marriages here so quickly is what's suprising. They do seem to make great wives, but the American rich man usually dies young. I hope Mrs. Sanford keeps her man. This public crisis may be what was needed to break the Argentine woman's power over him.

Hopefully, at some point we will get beyond this obsession with politician's private lives. It plays no role, nor is an indicator, of their abilities to govern.

It may not be an indicator of their ability to govern but it is an idicator that they can't be trusted. Today is my 26th wedding anniversary. All those years ago, I swore to my wife that I would foresake all others. Through all of those years, I have never once broken any of my wedding vows. I gave her my word and that means something to me. Odds are those words are in most wedding vows. I lose a lot of respect for anyone who can't keep their word.

It also goes to show that the advice I save to my sons still stands. I told them that "Every man has two heads. You're bound to get into trouble if you go through life thinking with the small one."

He let the little head do the thinking for the big head. Being obsessed with another woman can overrule common sense. He was in the grip of temporary insanity, and that's why he thought he could fly unnoticed to Argentina for a few days.

Cheating on your spouse with a *friendship* is still cheating. If you're going to someone else for understanding and comfort, just because it's not sex doesn't mean it's not taking away from your proper relationship with your spouse.

There are habits of behavior that are wise to follow if you intend to be faithful, and since promises to be faithful were made, they should be followed... There are appropriate people to which one pours out their heart and troubles... and people who are not appropriate.

The idea that we can be "just close friends" with someone who is *possible* is a lie.

The wife is the brains of that duo, so when she came out wielding the "kids" you knew there was something up on the home front. Sanford is my gov and I generally like him. But he is not pres material and would have just been in the way around about 2011. And as for this not being a 'real' scandal... believe you me, it damn well is in Greenville.

I would say that many "political marriages" are just that. More politics than marriage: witness the apparent political alliance between Bill and Hillary Clinton. They both get what they want from their union while Bill goes down to Argentina and hires a $1000/hr hooker. (I won't post a link since the ones I could find are NSFW, but Google it for yourself.) It works for them: whatever.

I would add that the kind of personality that's drawn to national politics is unlikely to remain faithful in a marriage. The faithful most likely constitute the exception rather than the rule.

Because a Christian fails to live up to his ideal at all times in all places isn't proof that the ideal shouldn't exist: it's just proof that we are human and we all need to try harder next time (after making our peace with God, of course).

This is fine - up to the point that the Christian's ideal has become an ideal that all the rest of us are supposed to live up to. You set ideals for yourself and you struggle and fail, hey, you got my empathy. All of us struggle with that. But harangue me for ideals that YOU set up for ME, and then it turns out you don't live up to them either, well you earned that scorn.I'm not sayin' that's the Governor's case here. I haven't heard that he's set himself up as a moral lodestar for all of us. And as long as there isn't any blatant hypocrisy involved, then I don't take any particular glee in this. I think it's none of our freakin' business. South Carolinians might have a problem that he didn't tell them where he was for some days but hey, I'm hardly outraged by that myself.

"Cheating on your spouse with a *friendship* is still cheating. If you're going to someone else for understanding and comfort, just because it's not sex doesn't mean it's not taking away from your proper relationship with your spouse."

I would take that even further. One of the reasons that I love my wife is that she makes a point never to take our private disagreements to her friends to complain about me. She knows that they would only be getting her side of the story, and it would be unfair to me to do that. It's all part and parcel of "love, honor and cherish" that so many people like to ignore.

P.S. As a result, her friends and I get along famously, they think the world of me and are envious (in a good way, not the mean catty way) of our relationship. I got me a good one, and I mean to keep her :)

So what would a liberal Democrat have to do be called a hypocrite, and for other liberal Democrats to agree?

Not give to charity? Nope. Some people called Gore and Biden hypocrites for that, but liberal Democrats didn't agree.

Cheat on taxes? Geithner, Rangel, long long list. Same thing. Everyone gets a pass.

Produce carbon like crazy with a 15,000 sq ft house or four houses or private jets. Hmmm. Edwards, Gore, every green liberal celebrity except Ed Begley.

Tom Daschle made $5 million dollars in just a few years consulting a law firm after he left the Senate and he isn't even a lawyer. He got paid because he could get those in Washington to pick up the phone. But he was always for the little guy.

Sanford lost his pridegot all starry-eyed and lied didn't decide to confide or abide with the bridenot to be denied or defied he flied worldwide to hideafter the ride and glide he returned home sighed and criedthinking about cyanide

Here's a email from Gov. Sanford to his girlfriend in July 2008, courtest of "The State" newspaper in Columbia, SC, one of SC's two most influential newspapers.

“One, tomorrow leave at 5 a.m. for New York and meetings. Will think about you on its streets and wish I was going to be there later in the month when you are there. Tomorrow night back to Philadelphia for the start of the National Governor's Conference through the weekend. Back to Columbia for Tuesday and then on Wednesday, as I think I had told you, taking the family to China, Tibet, Nepal, India, Thailand and then back through Hong Kong on world wind tour. Few days home then to Bahamas for 5 days on a friend’s boat for the last break of the summer. The following weekend have been asked to spend it out in Aspen, Colorado with McCain - which has kicked up the whole VP talk all over again in the press back home ...

Two, mutual feelings .... You have a particular grace and calm that I adore. You have a level of sophistication that so fitting with your beauty. I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night’s light - but hey, that would be going into sexual details ...

Three and finally, while all the things above are all too true - at the same time we are in a hopelessly - or as you put it impossible - or how about combine and simply say hopelessly impossible situation of love. How in the world this lightening strike snuck up on us I am still not quite sure. As I have said to you before I certainly had a special feeling about you from the first time we met, but these feelings were contained and I genuinely enjoyed our special friendship and the comparing of all too many personal notes ...

Lastly I also suspect I feel a little vulnerable because this is ground I have never certainly never covered before - so if you have pearls of wisdom on how we figure all this out please let me know... In the meantime please sleep soundly knowing that despite the best efforts of my head my heart cries out for you, your voice, your body, the touch of your lips, the touch of your finger tips and an even deeper connection to your soul.”

At this time he had already jumped off the Reality Express and was on the local train with stops at Delusion, Childishness, Self Destruction and Disregard of Others. (I know, having had an affair myself, that you can convince yourself of almost anything, and ignore the obvious for an amazing length of time.)

This is going on while McCain is supposedly thinking of him as a running mate. (Hello, John Edwards!)

Most amazing, "The State" has had this and other emails since last December (how did they get them?) and sat on the story. On what basis do they decide not to publish this?

Don't believe the "bolt of lightening" bullshit. Most affairs are planned in the instigators' minds well before acting. This one has all the earmarks of being typical.

His biggest battle now is restoring the trust of his children. It's a long uphill slog to get this done, Governor, but it is possible.

"I would take that even further. One of the reasons that I love my wife is that she makes a point never to take our private disagreements to her friends to complain about me. She knows that they would only be getting her side of the story, and it would be unfair to me to do that. It's all part and parcel of "love, honor and cherish" that so many people like to ignore."

So true.

Oh, it's good to have someone who understands that people are people and sometimes you need someone with a shoulder to cry on... but the habit of talking your spouse *down* to your friends is pathetic... and it builds the negativity... and it's not how you *love* someone.

There is something very real in "speaking blessings"... if you're saying good things about your spouse, you look for good things to say, you *notice* the good things they do. If you're looking for what they do wrong that's what you're going to see.

"Family values" and its attendant morality are a goal that we should all strive for: not an absolute statement that one is perfect.

So start focusing on your own family and stop trying to keep me from forming one, and protecting it with the full legal options open to you. This kind of relative morality only comes out when a family values GOP politician has been caught with his willy out again.

But because there is a double standard for Democrats and Republicans, and he knows it. Clinton cheating? The press cheers. Edwards cheating? The press turns a blind eye. A Republican cheating? It's front page news.

Sorry but its not a double standard because the GOP tends to stick its neck out talking about the 'sanctity of marriage' and 'family values' and then has high profile pols caught with their pants down. Literally.

My suggestion to the GOP is to adhere to three principles: 1) Fiscal responsibility 2) fostering an environment to allow the free market to flourish which is the proven way to end poverty and 3) strong national defense. Those are the only things that really matter to people.

The people who are trying to keep marriage meaningful might make it so that when you *do* get to get married and have a family, Beth, it will still be worth something.

It's easy to give away something that is worthless.

Those who mistakenly consider that the push for gay marriage is yet another attempt to weaken it, at least care that it stays strong and stays valuable and stays important. We've got people here saying, in effect, that adultery isn't even *bad* unless someone is being hypocritical. It's not the cheating, not the adultery or breaking of faith with a spouse, it's not important at all UNLESS someone is a "family values" person.

What does that mean?

It means that except where *hypocrisy* is involved marriage has no value.

So wrap it up pretty and give gays the right to this worthless thing. This valueless thing. The vows mean nothing, the promises mean nothing, none of it means anything at all...

Wouldn't he be a hypocrite if he said what he did wasn't wrong? How is it hypocritical to say something is wrong, then do it, and admit it is wrong.

That's not hypocrisy to do something you know is wrong. That's just a weak will and poor judgment.

I don't think Obama is a hypocrite for signing an anti-smoking bill. I think he's someone with a habit that he knows is wrong, but that at the same time he runs to in order to find some comfort.

Hypocrisy is a very overused, and often misapplied word, too often deployed, it seems, to blunt what is really good moral teaching.

Adultery is wrong. It destroys relationships.

Sanford is now dealing with the consequences of his poor judgment, a reality that seems to affirm the moral teaching not blunt it. Moral teaching in general is not absolutely public or absolutely private. There are some choices we can make, but way too many of our choices we think are private have significant impact on others in our families and in our communities, and so, of course, there should be public conversations and encouragement to act in ways that best facilitates peace and harmony among a community.

That there is a broad spectrum of what should be related to the law, what should be related to interpersonal contracts, and what should be entirely left to individuals is part of the public conversation.

Sanford now has all kinds of reasons to speak against adultery, just as an alcoholic has all kinds of reasons to speak against alcoholism. That's not making them a hypocrite, it's making them far too understanding of the destructive results of moral failings.

Pogo, I'd have to "hike the trail" in my office if I wanted to get me a little sumpin', sumpin'. And I HAVE a gummint job, but it's not enough to make ends meet, so I always, always take on extra work.

The current Mrs Sanford must be wondering about her level of sophistication and her kissing skills. The Damage done to his wife by his pursuing another woman will never be fixed. But they can keep it together if she wants to keep him. The attorneys can hammer out a Reconciliation Agreement containing all of the terms of a favorable (to her) divorce settlement to be binding upon him in any case she files if he resumes the affair or starts a new one. Time will tell how strong she is and how much he wants her now that his heart is broken.

Forgive me but if I need to be reminded of virture I'll read the works of Plato. I'd rather not have it lectured by an elected official. If GOP pols want to preach on family values then get out of political office and start a ministry.

When does an embattled Republican suddenly become an embattled Democrat? When Fox News is covering him, of course.

The network known for its conservative leaning ran footage of Mark Sanford admitting to an extramarital affair on Wednesday with a Chyron identifying the South Carolina Republican -- near tears -- as a D, for Democrat.

Whatever you do out there, do NOT have any dear, dear friends, regardless of their sex and your particular sexual proclivity. They cause you to first lose your objectivity, and I dare say that your mind is not so far behind.

I guess my point is I don't think we should get all bent out of shape over the private lives of officeholders. But if we are going to make a big fuss I guess I don't mind it when a bigot like this guy gets hoisted up on his own petard.

for the people here who have a strong marriage and strict rules on cheating and confiding all i have to say is this.

falling out of love is the most terrible thing you can imagine. half way through the process you do not know if you are falling up or falling down. Having a family just furthers the complications. It hits you hard and swift, and then the next day it is forever. confiding may safe your marriage it may not. I wouldn't be so quick to judge or give advice unless you are in freefall.

"The science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state, for the preservation of its safety, peace and prosperity; comprehending the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals. Politics, as a science or an art, is a subject of vast extent and importance."

It is so far out of touch with our current world that it makes me want to laugh.

I mean... I do think that gays should be able to marry and I think that at least a significant portion of gay people (I haven't taken a poll!) want marriage to be a profound and valuable sacrament in their lives and I think that as much as it doesn't seem like it those gay people and the people who oppose them most are the two groups of people in this country who actually care about strengthening marriage and have the most in common.

Nansealinks...I listened to Sanford's press conference. He seems very much ready to land on his feet no matter whether either of these two women will stay with him. He has definitely not fallen out of love with Mark Sanford. And the Agentine lady needs to remember the saying, "When a man marries his mistress, that there is a job opening created."

politics: the art of playing sides and having both sides reasonably think they came out with a win win situation.

Having a crowd cheering and booing the whole time.

marital affairs: the shit that happens when you play two people in bed. it could be an art of playing a spouse and a lover and having each come out a little bit more knowledgeable and forgivable so that the world moves forward and not spiteful.

all i know is that what i am waiting for is a guy who is gonna have a past with mistakes. I don't want the 50 something virgin. That's why i try and understand how and why these things happen and if i can trust anyone again.

Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that a certain sort of emotionally needy self-love is a prerequisite for seeking public office in the first place... a need for constant affirmation...

"Political wives are not doing their jobs at home."

If someone needs affirmation it's *different* coming from someone who doesn't *have* to love you. It's like parents complementing their children... kids don't hear it or believe it so often because their parents are *supposed* to think they're the best thing in the world. Even if a wife is doing her "job at home" it doesn't mean that the message gets through.

Sanford - "You have a particular grace and calm that I adore. You have a level of sophistication that so fitting with your beauty. I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night’s light - but hey, that would be going into sexual details ..."

And here's a nice one from the Clinton era:

“The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust,” he told CNN. “And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.”

What the fuck is wrong with these men in power? Are they so intoxicated by it that they think that having a mid-life crisis in the middle of their political lives somehow absolves them of either getting caught or somehow will make people look the other way? Sanford, what the fuck were you thinking? Do you know what you've done in the name of following your little swollen pee-pee? Fucking idiot.

Aside from the higher standard that republicans and namely conservatives are held to vs. the judgmentless liberals/leftists/democrats are, it is just an absolute shame and a disgrace that a man elected to governor would engage in behavior unbecoming of someone who ran on a platform of conservative values. He needs to resign right now and go off screaming into the night forever as a liar and hypocrite who put himself above all others and possibly endangered his staff to criminal investigation(s) by lying to them that he was hiking in the Appalachians when he was really in Argentina or they were as culpable as he is and sucked them into his salacious foray into his hypocrisy.

"I think that as much as it doesn't seem like it those gay people and the people who oppose them most are the two groups of people in this country who actually care about strengthening marriage and have the most in common."

People whose views are falling off the edges are usually seen as having enough passion to keep the conversation going until the laws are made and changed. That is not to say it is a very interesting conversation, or that any of the resulting laws make sense.

You know, as far as scandals go this one is pretty weak. I mean as far as anyone can tell:

-He cheated on his wife and came right out and admitted it when caught-He didn't pay blackmail-He didn't pay off a friend to raise a bastard child-His wife didn't have a deadly disease-The press didn't have to drag it out of him-And as far as I know there wasn't any corruption.

Now, as the facts come out this all could change but quite frankly if it weren't for his disappearing trick and the lie about the Appalachian Trail this would be one of the most boring national scandals I could remember.

Ah! The light bulb illuminates here, thanks to the Synova and Jim. I've been scratching my head at all these folks saying men and women can't be friends, this will always happen, etc, etc, and it's not making sense to me, as I have half a dozen fairly close female friends.

But now I get it, though it takes me perilously close to channeling our very own rhhardin: all these women who are saying it can't be done have the view that "friend" == "confidant". That's fine, but that's not really a guy thing, and for sure none of those ladies are remotely filling that role for me (nor I them.)

That's an entirely different matter, and yes I certainly agree that having a cross-gender confidant instead of (or more than) your spouse sounds like a fairly dangerous thing.

Hey John Kerry - how about turning over your military records. You promised you would, what, 4 or 5 years ago - you remember, you were running for office or something. Anyway, it's always good to hear you carry on about morality.

I fell MUCH more sympathy for the woman he said he would be truthful to and the children he ditched on Father's day for his mistress.

I don't disagree that the family deserves more sympathy.

I meant that I felt no schadenfreude at the toppling of a GOP leader. I don't care about Ensign, either. Any middle-aged crazy can fall hard for a new lover -- this phenomenon says nothing about either the GOP or the Dems.

MArk Sanford is one of those moralizing Republican hypocrites who voted to impeach Clinton.

Witness the hypocrisy:But one House Republican, Mark Sanford, said: "The bottom line is that he lied under a different oath -the oath to his wife."

Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., said he would be "struggling" during Christmas over whether to support Livingston, even though the speaker-designate had not broken the law. "We as a party want to hold ourselves to high standards, period," Sanford said.--------------------------

Do you think this will cause other Republicans to pause for a second in their moralizing denunciations?

"The Kerry joke again reveals the fear that Palin's power in 2012 has for all Democrat insiders now ridiculing her every time they see the chance."

Yeah, I remember when people used to post comments here about the tremendous Power of Palin that supposedly had all Democrats trembling in fear (rather than shaking with laughter) back around September and October of 2008. Didn't quite work out then, and it's not likely to work out in 2012. But, a boy can dream, I suppose.

Mrs Sanford: " . . . if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance."

She will, of course, be the judge of that. As she must. The humility part is fairly easy (though we are dealing here with a politician.) True repentance is devilishly hard, because you have to give up all the excuses, even the little ones, all the resentments towards the spouse that you used for justification and all the attachments to the memory of your lover.

I could apologize after my affair but I could never truly and completely repent. That made a real reconciliation impossible.

Somefeller...It is always about a dream in Presidential politics. There is no Democrat defense to Palin's strong character and traditional values she actually lives, except for a steady drumbeat of ridicule to publicly shame any of her supporters. You notice that it does not work on me anymore, and I am one of many more realizing that truth. No one is ashamed of power. Think of something else quickly.

Actually, there's no evidence of "Palin's strong character and traditional values she actually lives" any more than there is evidence that she strikes fear in the hearts of Democrats, other than the general "oh, man, wouldn't it be bad for the country if somehow Palin or someone like her got elected President" type of fear. In other words, the same sort of fear that normal people would have if they woke up one morning and found Perez Hilton, Heidi Montag or Carrot Top in the Oval Office. Just because a person is a subject of ridicule doesn't mean they are also secretly respected as a truly worthy foe.

Somefeller...Ok, I have recently seen Perez Hilton whom you equate with Palin. The Carrot Top and Heidi Montag that you equate to Palin are only names to me. That analysis seems so out of touch with reality that I wonder if you believe it yourself. Did you accept Tina Fey's parody as the real Palin? Don't be afraid to learn about the leadership abilities of the real Palin. No one will shame you for it.

I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.

If Mark has even 1/10 of a functioning brain he should get his ass back down to Argentina and marry that woman. Mrs. Sanford has just signalled she has his balls in a vise, and is ready to twirl the handle.

Titus, I am extremely sorry about your loss. Perhaps our hostess would start a thread where we could have a dedicated discussion.

Titus.. We all felt like your clumbers were as special as you are. They had a wonderful life thanks to you. The next dog will love being with you as much as the one you lost. Sorry for your pain, Titus.

I fear that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Using mind control techniques developed on his home planet, Obama has unleashed an army of seductresses in order to eliminate the men who stand in the way of his reelection in 2012. Based on the timing of the Sanford and Ensign affairs, it appears he launched the offensive before the first primary of 2008.

I know this seems like a far-fetched theory, but it will seem a lot more plausible should Huckabee or Pawlenty ever hold the confessional press conference.

Coming clean probably not the time to try to make anyone empathize with your mistress.

I know, but he's squooshy in love with her, quite obviously. He was obviously dumped by the woman, who has more common sense than he does right now. He'll wake up in a few weeks or months and go, "what the hell did I just do?" But as of now, he is still immersed in the psychosis of mad love.

I don't think the gal pals of Clinton or Edwards were ever anything more than pleasant vanities and erotic vessels. I get the feeling that Ensign is a creepy power addict and bonking his aide's wife was just a way of asserting his alpha status, his right to humiliate the men who serve him.

This guy, on the other hand, seems to have gone over the moon. His inner self at war with his stated convictions. He's like the professor in "The Blue Angel," desperate to give up all that he earned just to be a clown in his beloved's circus.

And Methadras, you are right! I want my politicians to stand for absolutely nothing.

Penny, what is the difference now? Politicians who stood for something while they campaigned almost invariably go back on their word. They get into office, acquire power, and then negotiate a cushy spot for themselves on committees if they vote a particular way, get their bills preferential treatment, tack on amendments without resistance and on and on. Or you are a politician that takes 3 sides to an issue and try to be everything to everyone and end up being nothing to anyone. In either case, you lose.

Until you get the ability to understand how to properly feed and care for an animal you need to avoid inflicting that abuse on yet another innocent animal.

You are a weak and stupid human being, and if you had any insight at all you would give your remaining dog to someone who actually cares for animals in a way that recognizes that they are not accessories like your latest shoe purchase or a darling handbag that you have your eye on.

Now flounce along, sling your pussy, tell us all about Iranian pussy and leave dogs to those who are not self absorbed twits.

Little Miss Attila: "Are [Cassie] and I married to the only real men left in the entire freakin' country? Do we only want Momma's boys or Daddy's girls in the White House from here on out? Teddy Roosevelt is doing backflips in his grave right now: apparently no one is allowed to go on a writing retreat, take a road trip, or hike, hunt, or fish if they have any political ambitions at all. Unbelievable."

Red State's Erick Erickson: "It is refreshing that Mark Sanford is secure enough in himself and the people of South Carolina that he does not view himself as an indispensable man."

what a silly petty display. the fact he turned out to be cheating has nothing to do with the merits of their argument back when the only story was he was missing, and maybe hiking. And i say that having condemned the disappearance. here's a hint: you were not personally vindicated when he confessed to cheating. if you had any inkling that this was going on, then its like a broken clock being right: wholly coincidental.

i will also say that i don't consider this stuff irrelevant. i find it bizarre that some people think you can lack integrity when it comes to your marriage but have it when it comes to your political office. That you can be unfaithful to your wife, but not unfaithful to the law and the constitution. Cheating is a serious act of dishonesty and hurts the person you should least want to hurt. It is not an insignificant character flaw.

Not that it is an impeachable offense or anything like that. but i as a voter would have to take that behavior into account.

Alpha typifies the modernist sentiment, in which only base behavior is defensible.

Trying but failing to practice virtue is evil, especially if you recommend virtuous behavior to others.

As a result, it is okay to lie, cheat, and steal as long as you never suggest it's wrong to do so.

In fact, it's preferred over attempts at ideal behavior, because counselling good character while failing to achieve it yourself is hypocrisy, the worst of all sins. Indeed, as I have said, the only sin.

Can someone explain to me what it is about politicians (and politicians of BOTH parties) that somehow come to believe they are bulletproof? And can have affairs without being noticed? I recall reading an article that said the one thing that politicians share is narcissism--if that be so, I believe that ultimately it is their narcissismthat makes them come to believe they can do it. "Just because I could." Many in the political class in this country are absolutely rotten.

Titus--please accept my heartfelt condolences on the loss of your pet--I went through that last fall. And it was Madison Man who offered this bit of advice (I am paraphrasing). Some day you will have a new dog, and you will look in his eyes and recognize the pet you lost. I didnt do justice to the remark, but it is very accurate, I think.

"In movies, when men blow off real life for love, I always think who would do that?"

You think you won't until you do. Don't be smug, ever, anybody. It could happen to you. The more you think you are the one it could never happen to, the more fate gets excited about making you the professor-clown.

Take America's most famous hypocrite: Thomas Jefferson. He wrote the Declaration of Independance and did indeed intend for it to be a condemnation of slavery. And yet he held slaves.

And let's not gloss over that. Slavery was big time evil. We are talking Schindler's List evil. As in the kind of stuff that is so utterly evil that you have to be willfully blind not to realize it is evil as you do it.

And as a Christian, I believe God had some pretty cross things to say to Jefferson when he died about his sin of slavery. I dare say it endangered his mortal soul. But I likewise say that his hypocrisy wouldn't make it worse. If anything it is his redeeming feature. At least he didn't write slavery into our Declaration. At least he, with a stroke of the pen, put slavery on the course to extinction. But for Jefferson slavery might not have ended at all, as unimaginable as that might seem. And that made him a better man than the uncomplicated, unrepentant slaveholder any day.

[And none of this has anything to do with the Sally Hemmings thing. its impossible to reach any sure conclusions about the morality of that relationship, although it is inherently dubious to have a relationship with a woman when you claim to "own" her. The chances of them having a relationship based on free consent is frankly about zilch, but statistics can't tell us anything about individual cases.]

That is why i haven't said a cross word about Obama cracking down on smokers given that it looks like he is presently a smoker himself. i am not saying that i support the initiative. i don't smoke, but i am a little sick of the jihad against smokers and tobacco companies. But the fact that Obama is a smoker doesn't have anything to do with my opposition.

And as for Sanford, again, the hypocrisy isn't the problem. the cheating is. the hypocrisy--that he condemned adultry in others, and voted for clinton's impeachment--is in my book a saving grace. At least he did those things right, instead of letting lack of faithfulness realign his entire moral code.

If you should ever encounter someone whose sexual desires did not lead him into making a damn fool of himself, ask that person to say a prayer for me......I cannot parse the differences between Republican and Democratic sex scandals. They all range from farcical to melodramatic to pornographic depending on the actors involved and not on their politics.....The high point of hypocrisy, however, was attained by the feminists and their spirited defense of Bill Clinton.

Will we ever see a simple statement from a political or celebrity wife along the lines of,

He needn't unpack.

or

Best wishes to him in life.

Or similar.

Whatever the woman ultimately does, take him back or not, I would love to see an initial reaction along those lines. Why offer the reconciliation so readily while the spouse is still hot off his illicit rendezvous?

""In movies, when men blow off real life for love, I always think who would do that?"

You think you won't until you do. Don't be smug, ever, anybody. It could happen to you. The more you think you are the one it could never happen to, the more fate gets excited about making you the professor-clown."

Where do you get this stuff? Note to Ann: Everybody ain't on the slippery-slope to sloppiness. Some people have character. Some lives have meaning - without engaging in a "search" for it. Some people are real.

As I've mentioned before, you seem to love spitting this kind of malarky. To me, it's how you justify voting for Obama and not noticing the hypocrisy, now, that you diss him in your blog (What? You didn't know? We didn't tell you?) and - yes - even your second "marriage". And this comment doesn't send a good message about it's prospects either.

I lived in France - not just visited Paris - and the last thing Americans want to do is emulate them in any way. They are a sick, cowardly, and weasily people with a culture that reflects that. To paraphrase Ann Lebowitz (I think):

"The French must have invented discretion because lying to them is simply opening your mouth."

"You think you won't until you do. Don't be smug, ever, anybody. It could happen to you. The more you think you are the one it could never happen to, the more fate gets excited about making you the professor-clown."

If you want to warn us all against hubris, well and good--warn away, we need it.

But.... (you knew that was coming, didn't you?) ... there's way too much passive voice in your formulation. Somebody showing up in your life that happens to be powerfully attractive to you? Not your doing. How you choose to respond to that? Very much your doing.

@Kirk Parker Nowhere am I saying that people aren't responsible for what they do. My point is that everyone sits back and is complacent about their own faith. When it is tested, will you be prepared? Not if you go around being sure that you are good and it's those other guys who are bad. When your turn comes, you may fall and be surprised that you were capable of such a thing. You may need forgiveness too some day.

Sure, I'm in agreement with everything you say in your 2:58 comment. It's just that adopting the passive viewpoint ("look at what's happening to me" instead of "look what I'm choosing to do") is one of the most common ways we deceive ourselves. So IMO at least, pushing back against that kind of passive description is part of fighting the complacency.

I know why you ignored me and answered Kirk Parker, and that's fine, but Kirk Parker got it - and that's better.

Your comment reminds me of that thing Rush says about what people who know things have to endure: how less confident liberals work to beat them down, undermine them, tell them they're wrong for knowing anything with assurance. "Don't be smug, ever, anybody"? Puh-Leaze. When people do wrong, and fall of their own device, those of us who suffer under the weight of their mischief laugh - and laugh with glee - because they stained what time we have on this planet (which is all the time we have on this planet) and they deserve what they get - for forgetting us - as they grasp only for themselves. It's the same point I made about your "marriage": it's not about you, or Meade, or love, but about the institution and it's meaning for all of us - including those coming up behind us - which, of course, you could give a rat's ass about (compassionate soul that you are to anything and everything, evil or otherwise, as long as it's not rough-around-the-edges like me.) You told one guy you were going to love him for life. Now you're telling another guy you're going to love him for life. How many lives (and "promises") you got, Lady? Is your word - a law professor's word - worth anything?

By the way, here's a piece on French sexual morality, too:

"They believe that everyone has a right to enjoy sex, with or without love. If you're lucky enough never to get bored with your partner, great. If not, there's no shame in looking for sex outside your marriage. It works in France because the French don't expect total honesty from their partners. In fact, they believe honesty can be downright destructive."

Like I said: a nation of liars.

How anyone thinks life gets better, when you sugarcoat the evil done to others, is beyond me.

Yea, I get a lot of that, but if there's one thing I've learned - which our NewAge culture (which claims to be so open and shit, and which I despise with a passion) can't abide - it's that personalities are different. This desire to be make everyone passionless as people do wrong - or hoping, as Ann warned, to avoid "humiliation" (as though there's nothing worse) - is bogus: you do shit your way and I'll do shit mine.

My take on the world, coming up in the generation just after the Boomers, is that they're a huge group of delusional liars, determined to wrestle the truth any way they can, passive-aggressively forcing the rest of us to accept their narcissistic take on things because they've got/had the numbers to do so: It's bullshit and I've chosen - openly - not to go along.

To me, you can't say "I voted for Obama" without also saying, "I'm sorry I did this to the rest of you." You can't say you'll "judge a man by the content of his character" and then expose your true desire that "We've got the first black president!" You can't be a law professor and act like your words and thoughts don't matter.

I've got scars from defending the values I live by. I've seen more dead bodies than I can count of people thinking they can flaunt those values as bogus - and losing that bet. (We're losing it, now, after this last media-manufactured election.) This ain't no mental exercise, to me, as it is for so many armchair quarterbacks: there are consequences to the things we do - we just may not see them immediately - and, I think, I am a consequence, and product, of the very bad decisions of others - starting with my own mother who had 7 kids by 4 different men forcing me to grow up in the foster care system: probably America's best environment for grasping the crass and base nature of man.

I want people to do the opposite of the Talking Heads' suggestion to "Stop Making Sense." (A typical Boomer/NewAge admonition.) I want the last 50+ years of Maharishi/Scientology/est/Buddhist/NewAge "teachings" to be revealed for what they are: a con job and the source of almost every problem that's come afterwards. The gist of those "teachings" is "You can believe what you want to believe." Again: it's bullshit, and well below what any thinking person should accept (quietly, according to Ann) but, if nobody says so - forcefully - it will just go on. Boomers have proven that they won't let reason get in their way. They define acceptance as weakness - and a free pass. Especially if, like Mark Sanford, they can cover it behind some "spiritual" mumbo-jumbo. (I never had a harsh word for Ann until, in a post, she revealed her belief she may have had a ghost in her house. After that, I wondered what kind of 50+ law professor could be so daft - then I noticed her other beliefs and interests were, many times, in support of something degenerate: "Evil" museum exhibits, Olympic athletes publicly smoking pot - leave 'em alone! - presidential candidates who hang out with evil racists, terrorists, and other assorted political scum.) I'm no prude but, for me, it's all part of a delusional whole.

Ann Althouse has a platform and, with her views, the risk of humiliation is hers and hers alone. She's the one who should be watching what she says:

There's more than one way to berate an audience, and a constant bombardment of bad ideas, by someone propped up by wishy-washy let's see how it all turns out Glenn Reynolds, is one of them. (Answer me this: Glenn Reynolds, Ann Althouse, the folks I see on Bloggingheads - what do any of them actually stand for - other than hearing themselves talk? Humiliation? Sister, this whole online experience is humiliating.)

Anyway, PK, Snow White had seven dwarfs: I'm Grumpy, and I ain't in love like the rest of these dopes - that's how Ann said "It could happen to you" right?

I didn't see previously that entry in the Republican Sex Scandal database.

As the saying goes, YOU are the one who posted it as a "source". Your excuse is that you didn't bother to read it before you posted it?

You didn't miss much. Even your source admits that only certain sources are considered "credible", some of the information is unsubstantiated, and the rest is probably just been made up to inflate the list.

But, if you are willing to stand by it as a "source" well .....

It wasn't "a woman" having her tubes tied, but the ever-so-preachy moralist/hypocrite Dr. Laura Schlessinger. And in the entry it's tied (get it?) to the fact that she opposes birth control.

You know, another hypocrisy. There's a whole list there for Schlessinger.

Again, it's YOUR source that included a woman getting her tubes tied to be a "sex scandal", not mine.

Now, given that your source admits that the a significant portion of the information contained is unsubstantiated or even simply made up, I won't assume what Schlessinger's actual view on birth control is. I know that Palin is OFTEN quoted erroneously as being opposed to birth control when she has publically supported a multi-focal approach so it's possible that the same has been done to this individual.

The rest of your comments lack discernible logic so I can't comment.

Yeah, a bit tacky, but it's a sex scandal database. Things just get tacky there.

And I never said the words you attribute (and creepily respond) to me about Palin as a Jezebel. You're "bearing false witness." But IOKIYAR, right?

And, of course, I NEVER attributed any words to you. Your response here has more to do with your lack of reading comprehension skills (and, I suspect, a desire to distract attention from your own misogynist position) than with what I actually said.

Not really surprising given that you apparently completely missed the irony in this comment:

Red State's Erick Erickson: "It is refreshing that Mark Sanford is secure enough in himself and the people of South Carolina that he does not view himself as an indispensable man."

I've thought long and hard about that - pondered it over lunch even - and I, still, have no freakin' idea what you're talking about.

NKVD,

I know, I know - I'm not completely alone - but it still doesn't get said enough, by enough people, in nearly enough forums. We hear from Ann, Glenn, assorted believers - really, a kind of clique of a certain middle class thought, etc. - but anyone outside of that can't get a word in (Ever heard anyone who isn't conventional - who really goes against the grain - in bloggingheads? Why not? Who's deciding these things? And why do the people we see all know each other? Glenn promotes Ann (and his wife, "Dr. Helen") while Ann promotes her son, etc., just like Dr. Phil promotes his wife and kids, like any of them have a special expertise or viewpoint - beyond promoting each other. I'm a black, atheist, conservative artist - seen any other ones in the mediasphere? Why not? I'll tell you:

All we've got in the online mediasphere is a new set of blinder-wearing gatekeepers looking out for their own power base. They don't care about ideas, or change, but bullshit like Ann inviting everyone to liveblog American Idol or Pajamas Media, which has run several articles saying we need a new unconventional conservative art movement, thinking Crowder and Zo are the cutting edge when Crowder shoots at the usual targets and Zo can't get God out of his mouth even for minute. It's lame.

I gotta go - dinner date with my best friend and his kid - I'll speak when I get back.

My "best work" isn't online (most of my work isn't) but I'm good at a lot of things: I've already showed you a drawing. I've also painted murals, won a couple of writing contests, and was featured as "the only artist you can trust" (or something like that) in writer Donnell Alexander's Ghetto Celebrity - though, admittedly, that ain't my art. I do agree with the sentiment, though. You can find some music (which I think of as my main genre) here, here, and here, but, unfortunately, there's no country music, or ballads, or Jazz, or any of the other stuff I've done - just what was necessary, for whatever reason, to be up.

Reviews/comments about my albums, and performances, are all overthe web. I can't find 'em all because I never know who's written what. I just save 'em when I find 'em, but I haven't found a bad one yet. I guess, as a blogger, I'm seen as disagreeable because I don't have background music.